[Johan Malan]

Do you guys realize that it would be perfectly legal to use soft ammo in afganistan cause the Taliban are terrorists and they are not protected by the Hague convention?
So why dont the US use them?

we hold ourselves to a higher standard :insane:

[ash]

Hate to burst your bubble Bulletproof but it's so we don't pi$$ off the general public.

[Johan Malan]

Oh It'll even be legal to use shotguns, another no-no.

[Johan Malan]

The one problem when useing the 7.62 round is that when set to "Afrikaans" (Automatic) fire it is very hard to controll the rifle thus acuracy will be up to chit.
I figure that in area's (jungle) where close quater combat is the order of the day the 5.56 would be better but if you are in say a desert environment the 7.62 would be better (accurate semi auto fire)

[FutureMarine]

Automatic is wasteful mostely anyways. The only time it is necessary is when you are getting peoples heads down(wich can also be done on semi-auto just fine)

[jerry]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Lonegun1894

When i was over there, we had a few problems with jamming. The gas system dumping into the action didnt help. CLP, being liquid, didnt help either as it attracts dust. Dry lubes helped some, but it was a temporary fix. Caliber wise, we had other things available, like all the AKs lying around, and some people aquired FALs, Galils, etc, etc. But since the M-16 was what was issued, we all used it as ordered .

Same here, albeit I didn't get to trade a weapon for a tool box but a couple of times. Your right, you get as good as you can with what your issued. Our ASOC folks found out to stay alive to break down and clean every 4 hrs & wipe the weapon dry.

[Copper]

The M16/M4 weopons system is a fine instrument of warfare. It received a bad rep in the jungles of Vietnam that it has yet to live down in some circles. Macnamara and his "whiz kids" rammed an untested, unproven weapon down the throats of the US Military. It was pretty much, "here's your new rifle boys, go get 'em!" What happend after that was predictable. Non crome-lined barrels rusted, brass corroded, and carbon encrusted the bolt face. The skinny barrel heated up fast, there was no way to force the bolt home on a hot dirty rifle, and while men died trying to clear jams, the enemies AK-47 worked, well, like an AK-47. After fits and starts, the M16A1 was developed. A forward assist was added and the "bird cage" flash hider replaced the prong type on the original M16. Also the "ball propellant" powder that was the root of many of the problems the M16 encountered was trashed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I believe the DoD wanted a new bullet that would defeat body armour out to 800 meters, thusly, the 62 gr. Tungsten core SS-109 round was developed by scientists in Belgium. The current 1:12 twist barrels on the M16A1 wouldn't stabalize the 62 gr. bullet, therefore the M16A2 was born. It had a 1:7 twist, the barrel fattened up to 5/8", and 3 round burst option replaced full auto. The boys over in the marksmenship community with the Marine Corp. wanted better sights, and they got a fully adjustable windage and elevation rear sight. Also, the round handgaurds were added with heatshields on the inside.

The problem is with the current ammunition, not the weapon system itself. I think that either the current projectile needs to be improved or a new caliber needs to be implemented, or maybe even both. The 6.8 x 43 shows promise as to be the leading canidate to replace the 5.56 x 45, but time will tell. The M16 weapon system of today is a far cry from Eugene Stoner's M16 from 40 years ago.

[BattleRifleG3]

I have a hard time calling the original M16 Eugene Stoner's. He objected to his AR-10 design being scaled down to the smaller caliber, as size differences would mandate certain design differences. He subsequently designed the AR-18 as a less expensive, more durable, and more reliable rifle.

[Copper]

Wasn't the Stoner 63 another canidate to replace the M14? And didn't the Stoner 63 see some use by the Navy Seals during the Vietnam era?

[Mr. Pink]

I just think the main reason the M-16 gets more good press than bad press is that the people talking about it don't know much of anything. They view it as a sort of 21st century wonder-weapon just because it's the "best" gun in their Counter-Strike game. When I posted EXACTLY the same thing on a Battlefield 2 forum, people defended the M-16 tooth and nail. I got responses like "Wat ur foretting is that when teh m16 bullet hits, it turns into a very small, very hot buzzsaw" Wrong. It "turns into" some low-velocity metal fragments that go NOWHERE. "Teh m16 is reallly light and therefore less tiring and more accurate" Wrong. Light and more accurate? Next "Teh m16 was made much more reliable when they added the forward assist". Yes, but it still wasn't very accurate. When I asked this guy what a forward assist DID, he failed to answer. No big surprises there.

[NRAJOE]

When I was in the Army from '76-'79 my 'Nam era M-16 did just fine...never jammed, but didn't shoot it all that much either...being peacetime and all.

[Dallas]

Same here, M16A1 early '80's, I kept it spotless and cleaned it after everytime I fired it, even if it was just two quick patches and a little lube. Never had a problem, but like Joe said it was peacetime and I had the time and the stuff to clean it with. Whatever it's faults it was "my" rifle when I was in the Army and will always hold a special place in my heart. And yes I think we need to go to either 6.8 or maybe all the way back to 7.62.

[jamesfaync]

ive had just about every malfunction known to man with a m16/m4. true most of them where caused by the army insisting i use blanks all the time. but i would definetly like a more reliabe weapon if i go play in the desert again.

[RodneyKSig]

Honestly aside from the weak caliber arguement that seems very evident within the posts on this subject, I think the most essential question concerning the United States Armed Forces is the ancient weapon design of the M16 and the later m4. Has anyone even thought of replacing the weapon itself with lets say the Heckler & Koch G36c? Given the nature of the combat senario i.e. CQB and the enviroment, Desert the sheer ingenious design of the rifles made by H&K with its space-age polymers would be far superior to that of steel as well as be far more versatile in that the design is modern and is adaptable to numerous battle locations. The tighter tolerances in reliability and accuracy and far newer design presented by H&K would compensate for the .223's inability to function well at long distances. I will concede that the 5.56 NATO round needs to be "beefed" up but if HP's were used that would also greatly advance the balistics of the the round.

[Big Dog]

Even the vaunted G36 design has it's teething problems. I've been reading of a problem with the synthetic parts warping when the weapon gets very hot in sustained firefights. No testing ever accounts for all problems found in the field. Since these weapons are getting popular in many nations, we'll see the problems get ironed out.
I'm hearing rumbles that the US-version of the G36 may not go forward. So, the M-16/M-4 platform will soldier on - with different caliber uppers perhaps. Gotta admit - it's a very versatile basis for most anything needed in small arms.

[RodneyKSig]

I will agree that even in the most strenuous of test conditions it will not equal an actual combat senario, and given that the weapon is relatively new it will have some mechanical and technical flaws, the reputation of H&K is impeccable and I have no doubt that the will correct any malfunction a.s.a.p. However, I cannot understand why the US military is so darn stubborn eventhough they know the M16 is at its inception a terrible weapon and have continually made improvements on an invariably flawed initial design. They need to stop resting on their laurels and if they will not choose to adopt a "surefire winner" in the G36c they need to get the R&D boys to work on an "American" rifle replacement to the ancient M16.

[NorCalAshnjikov]

Quote:       Originally Posted by RodneyKSig

I will agree that even in the most strenuous of test conditions it will not equal an actual combat senario

Then its clearly not the most stenuous test, right?
I can't believe that after a 100+ years the US army hasn't devised a
test strenuous enough to equal an actual combat scenario

[Copper]

My mistake BRG3!! You are correct sir, the Hague Convention of 1907 deemed that any projectile that caused "undo suffering" shall be illegal.

Please correct my history if I'm wrong on this one, but I believe that while the British were trying to colonize India, the troops found that when you cut the tip off of the .303 British to expose the lead, it stopped the fanatical charges of the native tribesman in their tracks as opposed to the FMJ just zipping on through. However, if you cut the tips off of all of the cartridges in the magazine, it wouldn't feed right. To fix this problem, an arsenal in Dum Dum, India started producing a soft tipped bullet. This of course preformed wonderfully on the enemy, and naturally was very popular with the troops. But the whining liberals and the liberal media back in England cryed foul, and that the use of expanding type bullets was uncivilized and barbaric.

All of that being said, in 1985 DoD JAG stated that "The use of expanding type ammunition is permitted when engaging in counter-terrorist operations against combatants that are not part of the regular army another country". Well, there you have it.

[Mr. Pink]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Copper

My mistake BRG3!! You are correct sir, the Hague Convention of 1907 deemed that any projectile that caused "undo suffering" shall be illegal. Please correct my history if I'm wrong on this one, but I believe that while the British were trying to colonize India, the troops found that when you cut the tip off of the .303 British to expose the lead, it stopped the fanatical charges of the native tribesman in their tracks as opposed to the FMJ just zipping on through. However, if you cut the tips off of all of the cartridges in the magazine, it wouldn't feed right. To fix this problem, an arsenal in Dum Dum, India started producing a soft tipped bullet. This of course preformed wonderfully on the enemy, and naturally was very popular with the troops. But the whining liberals and the liberal media back in England cryed foul, and that the use of expanding type bullets was uncivilized and barbaric. All of that being said, in 1985 DoD JAG stated that "The use of expanding type ammunition is permitted when engaging in counter-terrorist operations against combatants that are not part of the regular army another country". Well, there you have it.

Isn't a bullet that goes through you more painful and terrible, even though it would probably cause eventual death, less humaine than one that kills you instantly?